I admire people who get rich by doing so honestly. The question really is: Is
using the money to help others more important than getting rich? Making money is
great, but those who are willing to use that power to help others are on a
higher moral ground. It is hard to judge someone unless you know them. I do know
this: It is wrong to covet someone else's material wealth. Serving others
is truly the highest gift one can give. Each of these wealthy people have the
agency to do as they like with their wealth. To take that agency away is
stealing, in my opinion. (And the scriptures, too.)

"He said that the main findings of the study were that rich Americans would
rather reduce deficits by cutting entitlement programs like Social Security and
Medicare instead of raising taxes on the rich." Not only that, the wealthy
want to and have largely succeeded in chopping private pensions to pieces.

Those of us who are concerned about wealth concentration are often
criticized as being "covetous." I deny being such. My opposition to
the 1% is based on their determination to destroy all types of support for
retirees like me. I think the 1% sees retirees like me, drawing a pension and
receiving social security, as a drag on their profits. The 1% want guys like me
dead, and the sooner the better in their view. So my view of the 1% is not due
to covetousness on my part, rather it is based on my own instinct for survival.

What a flawed and ridiculous conclusion to draw from this study! To conclude
that wealthy people are "greedy" because they support certain political
and fiscal policies is absurd in the extreme. Greed is not defined this way.
Well-considered opinions on what constitutes wise government fiscal policy may
not support the measures the survey authors obviously consider
"compassionate" or "generous," but those opinions are just as
valid as any. And they have nothing to do with greed.

What a lovely spin most of the posters on this thread have weaved. The 1 per
centers aren't greedy! They only want what's best for everyone! And
they worked so hard for what they have. Every single one of them. Now, you want
to talk about greed? How about all those lazy people who think that the
government should help our poorest and help make sure our kids are educated?
Seriously, folks...get real. The state of utah takes cow towing to a whole new
level. The rich aren't waiting on pins and needles for you to join their
club. This thread reminds me of the house slave who saw himself as special and
tsk tsked at those no count field hands. Folks, that guy was still a slave. And
what's more, you aren't going to be having dinner with the one per
centers any time soon.

"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands,
having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ
the flower of the country as servants ... They employ also a great number of
manufacturers and tradesmen ... But after all there comes the most numerous of
all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work.... I am conscious that an
equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this
enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators
cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let
their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human
mind.... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to
exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions
of property in geometrical progression as they rise.... The earth is given as a
common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry
we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be
provided to those excluded from the appropriation" - Thomas Jefferson,
letter to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785.

I am grateful but a little surprised that the Deseret News would publish this
study. I applaud the newspaper for their integrity in doing so.

As a
former Republican (now conservative independent) I could no longer stomach the
attitude of many in the GOP and such selfishness on the part of many wealthy
Americans as reflected in this quote from the study:

"the main
findings of the study were that rich Americans would rather reduce deficits by
cutting entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare instead of
raising taxes on the rich".

That selfish attitude runs counter to
the teachings of the Book of Mormon as I understand them. While I do not support
President Obama in his beliefs about "marriage equality", I certainly
believe he is more in tune with the teaching of the Book of Mormon and the Bible
when it comes to being concerned about the needy and those with second class
opportunities in this country.

That is why in good conscience I
could not vote for someone like Mitt Romney who seemed to me to be out of touch
with ordinary working Americans.

This article is misleading. The article claims that since these wealthy people
are against government-forced redistribution of wealth through taxation, that
these people are therefore "selfish". On the other hand, these surveys
tell us nothing about these same individuals' private charity! Nor does it
acknowledge the negative effects that many of these government social programs
have, and which many of these wealthy people understand. This survey does show
that many wealthy people support capitalism, which is not surprising since many
recognize that when a healthy capitalistic environment exists, it is the best
way to give those who are poor the opportunity they need to improve their
situation, and it often was exactly that type of environment that allowed them
to succeed in the first place. Renowned author Arthur Brooks has observed,
"... self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness.... In fact, the
millions of Americans who advocate for private entrepreneurship and limited
government—whether they are rich or poor—may be stingy when it comes
to giving away other people's money through state redistribution, but they
are surprisingly generous when it comes to giving away their own money
privately."

Granted, some (but not all) wealthy are selfish and some (but not all) poor are
lazy. It's a complex issue. Many good points have been offered on both
sides. Having lived in France for 4 years I have seen that the nanny state is
alive and well there. And I have seen up close and personal how it has stifled
among its people, on a broader scale than here, the initiative, creativity and
the willingness to work hard. I know plenty of French who are industrious and
hard-working. But I definitely observed that their nanny state has bred
widespread malaise. I hope we don't end up with that irreversible slippery
slope here in the USA. That said, I too have concerns about how much lobbying
power wealthy corporations have in the USA, but I have similar concerns about
the lobbying power of public sector unions and certain categories within the
legal profession. I wish I could offer a magic solution. I doubt there is one,
and some degree of dynamic tension on policy issues is vital and useful. The two
(or more) sides will need to keep bargaining in good faith for a long time.

They just as
human and have all the same human foibles and weakness and behaviors as the
poorest.

Its scary how the left teaches hate and judges others, and
wants treat certain others as less human and take from them.

And then
hypocritically ascribe those same traits on those others to justify their
actions. ( even mass murders, and mass theft, of the French revolution and the
Russian revolution, Cuba, Cambodia, china, Lithuania, nazi germany, and dozens
of other places that have claimed to impose "equality" described by
their leftist ideologies)

I know of no far left government that has
ever made the poor rich. No matter the claims of how they are for the little
people. Only the leftest leaders have ever gained anything.

If you
want to truly change the wealthiest 1%, or the poorest 1%, they only true way is
change hearts, their is no other way that doesn't lead mass murders and
mass impoverishment, great loss of freedom and liberty.

I agree, Mr. Barker, that people who "lust after the wealth of others"
are greedy.

But, that greed goes both ways. The company owner who
lusts after the labor of his workers, taking a greater portion than s/he is
entitled to have, is also greedy and a "taker." If people are turning
to governments to help them it is because they have given up on the trickle down
that was promised 30 years ago.

Labor is entitled to own their value
as much as the richest investor, perhaps more so, since it is all that they
have.

Opposing government programs that have demonstrably FAILED to solve the problem
of poverty, and indeed, made them progressively [pun intended] worse cannot be
taken as proof that someone is "greedy."

Unless, of course,
you are a member of the liberal media, or someone riding in the wagon instead of
helping to pull it.

Nor, does this study take into account the
voluntary charitable actions of the [evil, greedy] rich people.

This
is the sort of agenda driven advocacy I would expect to find in the
"other" paper, especially since it lacks the balanced perspective of
opposing views, or revealing the actual survey questions and results.

Greed is a very serious character flaw, be it in a rich person, a reporter, or
the masses who expect that someone else will give them their daily bread, a free
phone, a prepaid credit card, and free housing.

A more telling
study would be to survey the attitudes of a random 1,000 people who are living
off the money confiscated from the taxpayers of this country. See if they are
appreciative and working their way off the dole, or disgruntled that they are
not getting as much "free stuff" as they think they deserve.

"Increasing the minimum wage" would make income inequality worse, not
better. The same with expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and government
jobs programs for the unemployed. The entire premise of this article is wrong.

Rich conservatives clamor about America being a "Christian" nation when
the issue involves something like gay rights, same-sex marriage, etc. However,
when the issue involves feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, these same
people all of sudden become Social Darwinists.

Nosea said:"The 1% would like to re-write the scriptures as well, to
say: "where much is given much more should be given, and where little is
given much more should be taken away" versus actual scripture: "where
much is given much is expected." ..."

That is a disturbing
distortion of scripture. Using taxes to force people of means to "give"
is not at all what those scriptures are saying. To "give" implies using
our free will to do something good. We live in a free country where we reward
innovation, not punish people for being successful. Undoubtedly there are people
who in a Scrooge like fashion oppress others to tilt the odds in their favor to
accumulate more wealth--just as there are poor people whose "eyes are full
of greediness and will not labor with their hands". There is no simple
solution for the problem of economic inequality. But for the majority to vote to
force-ably redistribute wealth from the minority is *not* a good solution either
from a democratic or religious perspective. This would have lots of unforeseen
consequences, and it bothers me to see LDS scripture used to justify such a
position.